INTERNATIONAL
ACTIONS AGAINST THIS HI-TECH CRIME
Many human rights
campaigners from around the world have spent years working on countless books,
videos, websites, rallies and symposiums which highlight these matters. These
include efforts by prominent persons like Dr Nick Begich,
Dr Rauni Kilde (ex chief
medical officer for Finland) and well known author Gloria Naylor. To date, all
of it has been ignored by the criminally owned/controlled media. However, most
importantly, there has been open condemnation of these methods by major
political entities and I ask you to focus on these…
1.
The United
Nations – UNIDIR – (The UN
Institute for Disarmament Research) officially recognized a range of weapons
(both lethal and non-lethal), including the ones
previously listed, and recommended that they ALL be banned as weapons of
potential mass destruction. Naturally, the press releases and media guides that
they issued on this matter were totally ignored by the mainstream media. This
media treachery is the reason the public is unaware of the dangers.
2.
The European
Parliament – In January 1999, the
European Parliament passed a resolution where it calls ”
for an international convention introducing a global ban on all development and
deployment of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human
beings. It is our conviction that this ban can not be
implemented without the global pressure of the informed general public on the
governments. Our major objective is to get across to the general public the
real threat which these weapons represent for human rights and democracy and to
apply pressure on the governments and parliaments around the world to enact
legislature which would prohibit the use of these devices to both
government and private organisations as well
as individuals.” (Plenary Sessions/ EuroParliament,
1999)
3.
US Federal
politician Dennis Kucinich – In October 2001,
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich introduced a bill to the House of
Representatives which, it was hoped would be extremely important in the fight
to expose and stop psycho-electronic mind control experimentation on
involuntary, non-consensual citizens. The Bill was referred to the Committee on
Science, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services and International
Relations. In the original bill a ban was sought on ‘exotic weapons’ including
electronic, psychotronic or information weapons, chemtrails, particle beams, plasmas, electromagnetic
radiation, extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy
radiation, or mind control technologies. Despite the inclusion of a prohibition
of the basing of weapons in space, and the use of weapons to destroy objects or
damage objects in space, there is no mention in the revised bill of any of the
aforementioned mind-invasive weaponry, nor of the use of satellite or radar or
other energy based technology for deploying or developing technology designed
for deployment against the minds of human beings. [the
original Bill was called The Space Preservation Act, 2001 (HR 2977) it was
reintroduced as The Space Preservation Act, 2002 (HR 3616 )]. Kucinich’s
efforts mirrored similar attempts made some years earlier by ex astronaut, Sen.
John Glenn.
4.
US Federal
politician Jim Guest - recently wrote to all
members of the US legislature asking for help for the countless victims of
electronic harassment/torture (agency black operations being secreted from
congressional scrutiny thus allowing corrupt officers to frame/torture
innocents). To date, nothing concrete has come of this approach.
5. French National Bioethics Committee –
In January 1998, an annual public meeting of the French National Bioethics
Committee was held in Paris. Its chairman, Jean-Pierre Changeux,
a neuroscientist at the Institute Pasteur in Paris, told the meeting that
“advances in cerebral imaging make the scope for invasion of privacy immense.
Although the equipment needed is still highly specialized, it will become
commonplace and capable of being used at a distance. That will open the way for
abuses such as invasion of personal liberty, control of behavior and
brainwashing. These are far from being science-fiction concerns. and constitute “a serious risk to society.” (“Nature.” Vol 391, 1998)
6. Definition of Torture
under CAT
CAT Article 1 specifies
that, for purposes of the Convention, “torture” is
Understood to mean
any act
by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information
or a
confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain
or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
Importantly,
this definition specifies that both physical and mental suffering can
constitute torture, and that for such suffering to constitute torture, it must
be purposefully inflicted. Further, acts of torture covered under the
Convention must be committed by someone acting under the color of law..
Also,
CAT
Article 16 requires signatory States to take
preventative measures to prevent “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment” within any territory under their jurisdiction when such acts are committed under
the color of law.
Pursuant
to § 2340A, any person who commits or
attempts to commit an act of torture outside the United States is generally
subject to a fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years. In cases where
death results from the prohibited conduct, the offender may be subject to life
imprisonment or the death penalty.43 A person
who conspires to commit an act of torture committed or attempted outside the
United States is generally subject to the same penalties faced by someone who
commits or attempts to commit acts of torture outside the United States,
except that he cannot receive the death penalty for such an offense.44 Because
§ 2340A also criminalizes conspiracies
to commit torture outside the United States, it arguably could also apply
in situations where a U.S.national conspired to
transfer an individual “outside the United States” so that the individual may
be tortured…
No one has ever claimed legally that they are doing any
such thing and any problem/questions and queries regarding this may please be referred
to them …SO it was illegal and criminal al the way,
anyway .. Human experimentation word is also not applicable in that kind of
illegal and criminal acts , that violates basic constitution
rules like Freedom, Liberty, Equality and Justice …
N.B. :-
·
Soviet Russia
banned use of all such things it in 1990 ..Space Preservation
Act 2001 and Michigan Law was there to ban it altogether for long
, in US. Also, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, and Missouri of US have prohibited this
weaponry to be used in their territory ..
·
Plus this all
are a violation of Section, Anti Torture Law, Anti Radiation Device Law,
Michigan Law and all ..(i.e. 18 Section
2340A , 18 Section 241, 18 Section
242, 18 Section 2441 and 2442 (War Crime), 18 Section 2332h, HR 1197 and HR
1160 etc... ..)
·
Nuremberg
Trials were executed where cruel scientists were ordered hang sentence, and
Nuremberg Code was specified long back for getting full consent of a human
being for any human experimentation Project ..
·
UN declared
all these weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction and European Parliament
declared proposed a ban on Mind Control in 1999 ...How come it's all getting
continued even now ? ..These psychopathic criminals are some crazy dogs it
seems ..:)
·
As Par Universal Declaration of Human Rights and civil liberties and rights
also, fundamental and basic/natural rights are always protected … As par those
, "ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE
BORN FREE AND EQUAL"
It may kindly be noted that , Fourth Amendment to
US Constitution is “The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 ,
the right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights: “No
one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home
or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has
the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Most states of the United States also grant a right to privacy and
recognize four torts based on that right: 1. Intrusion upon seclusion or
solitude, or into private affairs; 2. Public disclosure of embarrassing private
facts; 3. Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye;
and 4. Appropriation of name or likeness Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances ...
Civil liberties are personal
guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge, either by law or by
judicial interpretation. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various
countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from torture, freedom from
forced disappearance, freedom of conscience, freedom of press, freedom of
religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the right to security and liberty,
freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due
process, the right to a fair trial, and the right to life. Other civil
liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and
the right to bodily integrity